Pages

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Universality and Politics in the Religions of the Levant

I would like to propose a way of viewing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three major religions of the Levant, that may be helpful in understanding the fundamental differences between the three.

I propose that we examine each according to two criteria, universality and politics.

Although I suspect that this is not an original analysis, I have found it helpful in my own understanding.

Judaism

Judaism is neither universal, nor is it political.

Judaism is not universal because there is no insistence that everyone everywhere must adopt the Jewish faith in order to receive some sort-of extra-special reward in the afterlife. If Muslims throughout history have often forced conversion of the vile infidel at the point of a scimitar, rabbis generally do their best to discourage conversion into the faith. There are a number of good reasons for this, of course. One good reason is that the rabbinate wants to make sure that any potential converts are entirely sincere, thus they make conversion into the Jewish faith a difficult matter.

Another good reason for this, of course, is that it is not so easy being a Jew. The persistence of irrational Jew Hatred among the majority populations where Jews tend to reside makes being a Jew very interesting because you never know when you are going to get clobbered merely for being a Jew, although this is far less true in the United States.

At this point in history there are only a relatively small percentage of Christians that despise Jews and, today, it is mainly due - or allegedly mainly due - to the perceived mistreatment of the innocent bunny-like Palestinian-Arabs who want nothing more from this world then to tend their Sacred Olive Groves in peace. To the extent that western Christians, or westerners of Christian derivation, despise Jews it has much less to do with supersessionism (replacement theology) or the joyous killing of Christ than has to do with the idea that the cruel Israeli Jews like to rip up those "sacred" olive groves with their bare fangs and otherwise treat the "indigenous" population like mierda.

Nor, of course, is Judaism political. That is, outside of a few highly Orthodox Jews in Israel, no one is suggesting that any government should operate according to Torah law. In Biblical times the faith was political because prior to the European Enlightenment religion was the organizing principle in all aspects of human life, including politics, but today this is no longer the case. In fact, the only modern Jew that I know of who called for Israeli law to be entirely grounded in Torah is the late Meir Kahane and we all know how well Israel suckled Kahane to its breast. They charged him with racism and booted him from the Knesset.

So, Judaism is neither universal, nor generally political.

Christianity

Christianity is universal, but no longer political.

Christianity is universal because the only way, according to the faith, that the individual can attain Eternal Life is through communion with the Son of God, Jesus. Anyone who dies without first having pledged their love and devotion to Jesus Christ will not attain Heaven. This is a primary tenet of the faith. Contemporary western Christians tend to tread lightly around this idea, but it still holds as a primary ideological foundation of the Christian faith for both Protestants and Catholics. It is incumbent upon the highly devout to spread the Good News in order to save souls, however it is entirely up to the individual to determine if they have the capacity to open their hearts to the truth of Jesus.

There is, today, virtually no forced conversion into the Christian faith.

Christianity, however, is today no longer political. That is, there are no Christians in Europe, and virtually no Christians in the United States, that believe the government must formally operate according to the precepts of scripture. Such a proposition, of course, would directly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even the most hard-core, right-wing, Evangelical, Tea Party, Sarah Palin-voting, southern rednecks do not believe that the government of the United States should be grounded entirely in the Bible and the New Testament.

So, while Christianity is universal, it is generally no longer political in the meaning of that term as I am using it here. Certainly Christians, themselves, are often political and very often their political views, such as Evangelical views on "the Gay life-style," are based on their understanding of their faith, but that is not the same as wanting law based on Deuteronomy or, somehow, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Islam

Islam, needless to say, is both universal and political.

The universality of Islam, unlike Christianity, is not merely transcendental, it is worldly. Muhammad taught his followers that it was incumbent upon them to spread Islam to the four corners of the Earth by any means necessary, including violence. "The Prophet" taught his followers to spread the faith through terror if need be and our friends in the Islamic State are taking him at his literal word.

This is what is known as Jihad and it is becoming more and more evident that this is what we are seeing in Europe and to a lesser extent, the United States. The purpose of all the blood and mayhem in places like Nice or Orlando or San Bernadino or Boston or New York or London or Paris or Berlin is to strike fear into the hearts of the Kufar in order to make us conform to al-Sharia.

Islam is universal and via al-Sharia it is also highly political. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam never went through an Enlightenment that drew a division between the secular world and the world of faith. In the world of Islam it is all about the faith and the faith is all about al-Sharia, Islamic law.

When jihadis shot up the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris it was not out of irrational malice. It was in order to enforce al-Sharia. It was in order to make it very clear to the infidel that Muslims would simply not put up with non-Muslims breaking Muslim law by depicting Muhammad in any manner and particularly not a disrespectful one.

And the thing of it is, these bully-boy tactics are working brilliantly. The jihadis now have western publications and news outlets, and other forms of media, exceedingly reluctant to anger Muslims by doing anything that Muslims do not like because it violates al-Sharia.

This is why some young women in Europe are becoming more and more reluctant to even leave their homes, depending upon the neighborhood. Western styles of female dress are immodest by the standards of al-Sharia and therefore marks them as sluts or whores in the minds of these North African and Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants. Because they are disregarding Allah's Law they are fair game and deserve whatever beatings or rapes that they get.

This is also why Muslims tend to despise Israel with a white-hot passion. The very existence of the Jewish state is an abomination in the eyes of Allah. According to Islamic law any bit of land, however large or small, that was ever part of Dar al Islam must always and forever remain a part of Dar al Islam.

One thing is certain, if Israel were a 23rd Arab-Muslim state, the world would look upon it as a miracle and the rest of the Arab world would probably admire it.

Among other important points, Gil-White demonstrates that Western elites have very bad intentions toward Israel. This seemingly implausible statement beccomes much less so after wading through Gil-White's thesis.

Barack Obama on the so-called "Arab Spring" (May 19, 2011):

"There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat."

The "Arab Spring" was the brutal rise of political Islam in the Middle East and this is what Obama compares the Civil Rights Movement to?

The Fundamental Argument:

The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.

Such venues include political journals, such as, but not limited to, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian, numerous universities throughout the United States and Europe, various NGOs with an anti-Israel agenda, and the entire progressive-left movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the Jewish people of the state of Israel.

These venues and organizations do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.

For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.

What You Can't Discuss:

This is a partial list of taboo topics within progressive-left venues around the Arab-Israel conflict. You cannot discuss this material because it undermines the "Palestinian narrative" of perpetual victimhood. This narrative is a club used by the Arab and Muslim enemies of Israel, along with their western progressive allies, to delegitimize that country in preparation for its eventual dissolution.

1) The centuries of Jewish dhimmitude under the boot of Islamic imperialism.

2) The recent construction of Palestinian identity, its connection to Soviet Cold War politics, and how this is an Arab people with a Roman name that refers to Greeks.

3) Arab and Palestinian Koranically-based racism as the fundamental source of the conflict.

4) The ways in which contemporary progressive anti-Zionism serves as a cloak for gross anti-Semitism.

5) The Palestinian theft and appropriation of Jewish history.

6) "Pallywood."

7) The historical connections between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Palestinian national movement.

8) The perpetual refusal of the Palestinian-Arabs to accept a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.

9) The progressive portrayal of terrorists as those fighting a righteous war of "resistance."

10) The Arab-Palestinian indoctrination of children with Jew hatred.

11) Human rights violations against women, children, and Gay people in the Muslim Middle East.

12) The fact that violent Jihadis call themselves "Jihadis" and claim to love death above life.

This is only a partial list, so please let us know the many more that we are missing.

Quote of the Whenever:

It is not that most progressives are anti-Semitic. They aren't. It's that they don't get it, they don't care, and they very much want you to shut the fuck up. - Michael Lumish